Maya Forstater Tribunal March 2022- Thread 2

[Sophoclesthefox]

Forgive the presumption, @Mforstater, but you’re probably busy in the pub right now, or passing on all of the fan mail to you legal team so I’ve made a new thread to carry on the fascinating discussion.

Round up your cats, rabbits and weasels, and let’s go!

——————————————————————————————

From thread one, here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4498167-Maya-Forstater-hearing-starts-Monday

Hi all,

Thank you so much for all your support: emotional, intellectual, financial, spiritual(!) reading the Mumsnet feminism board is where this all started for me!

The case starts tomorrow.

It is all online. If you want to watch you need to email the tribunal for a log in to [email protected]

It kicks off at 10am - the first bit will be "admin" between the judges and the lawyers working out the timings, issues and any reporting restrictions hmm.

Once that is all sorted the judge and the panel will go away to read (probably for the rest of Monday and all of Tuesday)

I will most likely give evidence Wednesday and Thursday.

@tribunaltweets will be tweeting the whole thing (assuming they get permission from the judge)

Links to papers will go up throughout the case at www.hiyamaya.net.

Any other questions I am happy to answer them (apart from the ones where I have to say "that is for the tribunal to hear"...)

I have made a spectators guide with FAQs etc here

Lots of love

Maya

Just catching up. Fascinating stuff.

What does AG mean when she keeps saying 'with a disclaimer'? What's the disclaimer - does she mean a disclaimer about personal views and not views of CGD?

Yes, it does.

Thanks tabby

No answer. Did we get an answer from Luke yesterday?

She did answer. She said that Maya would have to frame her views in terms of cis women v trans women so in terms of gender identity language.

How is this not a screenplay already? Bizarre. Hilarious. And frighteningly sad that people like this have positions of responsibility over other people's jobs.

AG is losing her shit a bit and the EJ is pointing out that AG should be answering the questions. EJ also intervening on material reality. EJ going back to Marxist theory: he wants to know whether we're talking about Marxist theory, or just material reality meaning 'something like the reality of the material world'?

BC: The latter.

EJ: Makes a joke about Marxism.

thanks, tabby, great work.

EJ says if we're talking about the reality of the material world, can we be sure that this is what we're discussing? Interesting.

(He doesn't make any statement endorsing reality, btw.)

Jugde G now talking about Marxist theory of of material reality vs normal understanding of material reality. Makes joke about red herrings & marxist theory.

JG reminds AG to stick to answering the Q's - its not an opportunity for her to say whatever she wants.

Judge Glennie just intervened to tell them to stop mentioning Marx and told AG to answer the questions asked of her.

'Material reality' relates to the physical observable world, not to some Marxist theory.

What was the joke about Marxism and red herrings?

This is reminding me of that episode of Dr Who (the Tennant era) when the Dalek emperor was threatening to detonate the Reality Bomb which would destroy all life.

Is Ben Cooper the new dalek emperor?

@Pluvia

Judge Glennie just intervened to tell them to stop mentioning Marx and told AG to answer the questions asked of her.

'Material reality' relates to the physical observable world, not to some Marxist theory.

Two men sitting on the verandah.

'I say, old chap, have you read Marx?'
'yes, these wicker chairs are the devil'

That was intense! They're having a break now

That red is an appropriate colour for a Marxist herring.

Matey: it is the reality bomb!

Thanks for your sterling work tabby!

When they have a break I do some work

Is it relevant to the case that they don't understand the arguments that they are assuming are offensive?

As well as dealing with BC's questions AG will be doing fine calculations about what this cross-examination is doing to her career and her professional reputation and probably friendships and family too. It must be exhausting to have to keep up this double-think life.

@Sillydoggy

Is it relevant to the case that they don't understand the arguments that they are assuming are offensive?

You'd think but the law is a strange beast.

Yes, Pluvia, she would rather be under the bus in this tribunal than in Washington, wouldn't she?

AG can't even keep her own ideology straight. She says:
" Gender and sex are different, and that is one way she could have said it."
But then later there's this exchange:
"BC:That sex is material and different to gender identity. Can she say that?
AG: Yes, I think she did. I think it was in fact offensive to a number of people in DC."

What? So AG thinks sex and gender are different, and it's fine for Maya to say this.But when Maya said sex and gender are different, it was 'offensive' to a number of people in the office? But I thought saying sex and gender is different was offered as the least offensive thing Maya could have said! This woman doesn't know what she believes.

@Sillydoggy

Is it relevant to the case that they don't understand the arguments that they are assuming are offensive?

Good question. You would have thought so, but pleading ignorance 'we didn't understand/ we didn't realise' may be their strategy. See LE yesterday...